Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-5 are pending and examined below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/24/205, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hochman.
The drawing objection is withdrawn. Please see the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hochman et al. (US 20130189646 A1) hereinafter, Hochman, in view of Llop (US 20140272778 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hochman teaches
a guided bone regeneration (GBR) surgical procedure method, comprising:
scanning a patient's oral cavity to fabricate a temporary structure having a shape identical to or corresponding to a shape of an extracted tooth (digital scanning, ¶0156, Hochman);
inserting the temporary structure (10, Fig. 11, Hochman) into an extraction socket (102, Fig. 6, Hochman) to identify a gum incision area, wherein the inserting of the temporary structure enables identification of the gum incision area by visually confirming a location and range of the extraction socket (orientation of the shell 10, ¶0139 & spatial relationship of the residual soft tissue gingival socket, ¶0204, Hochman);
making a gum incision (¶0161, Hochman);
removing the temporary structure (10, Fig. 11, Hochman) from the extraction socket (removed, ¶0210, Hochman);
attaching bone shields to outer and inner sides of the extraction socket (optional barrier membrane can be positioned if necessary before or after the bone grafting, ¶0211, & intra-operative abutment that is placed during the immediate soft tissue implant preservation protocol to allow bone grating materials to be placed within the bone gap, ¶0231, Hochman);
inserting a bone graft material into an empty space formed by removing the temporary structure from the extraction socket (bone grafting materials are placed within the gap, ¶0211, Hochman).
Hochman does not teach making a gum incision along the identified gum incision area. However, Llop teaches a bone foundation guide and a dental implant surgical guide (abstract, Llop) wherein
making a gum incision along the identified gum incision area (make incisions in the gum area of the dental surgical site, ¶0045, Llop); and
suturing the incision area (gum tissues can then be sutured, ¶0051, Llop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hochman by incorporating the teachings above as taught by Llop in order to peel back the gum to expose and cover up the portion of bone (or extraction site) being operated upon (¶0045 & 0051, Llop).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hochman in view of Llop, and further in view of Horvath (US 20130261672 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hochman teaches
wherein the temporary structure (10, Fig. 1, Hochman) comprises:
a guide (10, Fig. 1, Hochman), which is fabricated to have the shape identical to or corresponding to the shape of the extracted tooth or the empty space of the extraction socket through the scanning of the patient's oral cavity (mimic the shape of the soft tissue socket, ¶0118, Hochman); and
connectors (40, Fig. 10, Hochman).
Hochman teaches connectors but does not disclose the connectors extend to the left and right. However, Horvath teaches a distraction device for bone regeneration (abstract, Horvath), wherein
connectors (200, Fig. 11, Horvath), which are connected to the top of the guide by screws, extend to the left and right (extends with 125, Fig. 11, Horvath) from the guide (100, Fig. 11, Horvath), and are caught to the unoperated tooth (160 & 161, Fig. 11, Horvath) around the extraction socket (165, Fig. 11, Horvath), contributing to temporary fixing of the guide (Fig. 11, Horvath).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hochman and Llop by incorporating connectors as taught by Horvath in order to stimulate osteoblasts by lifting the membrane, resulting in osteogenesis (¶0157, Horvath).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hochman in view of Llop and further in view of Drapeau et al. (US 20120045735 A1) hereinafter, Drapeau.
Regarding claim 3, Hochman teaches
a granulation tissue detachment step (S10) including making the gum incision (¶0161, Hochman);
an alveolar bone grafting step (S20) of attaching the bone shields to the outer and inner sides of the extraction socket (optional barrier membrane can be positioned if necessary before or after the bone grafting, ¶0211, & intra-operative abutment that is placed during the immediate soft tissue implant preservation protocol to allow bone grating materials to be placed within the bone gap, ¶0231, Hochman) and
inserting the bone graft material (bone grafting materials are placed within the gap, ¶0211, Hochman).
Hochman does not teach making the gum incision along the identified gum incision area. However, Llop teaches
comprising: making the gum incision along the identified gum incision area (make incisions in the gum area of the dental surgical site, ¶0045, Llop); and
a suturing step (S30) of suturing the detached granulation tissue over the extraction socket (gum tissues can then be sutured, ¶0051, Llop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hochman by incorporating the teachings above as taught by Llop in order to peel back the gum to expose and cover up the portion of bone (or extraction site) being operated upon (¶0045 & 0051, Llop).
Hochman in view of Llop does not specify detaching the granulation tissue from a top of the extraction socket. However, Drapeau teaches a dental implant system (abstract, Drapeau) wherein
detaching the granulation tissue from a top of the extraction socket (remove infected surface 65 including granulation, tissue, ¶0056, Drapeau).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hochman and Llop by incorporating the teaching above as taught by Drapeau in order to repair dental implant and the adjacent soft tissue and bone, ¶0056, Drapeau).
Regarding claim 4, Hochman teaches
wherein the granulation tissue detachment step (S10) comprises:
a gum opening step (S11) of incising the top of the gum to open the extraction socket (¶0161, Hochman);
a temporary structure (10, Fig. 10, Hochman) installation step (S12) of inserting the temporary structure (10, Fig. 10, Hochman) into the extraction socket (102, Fig. 6, Hochman) to temporarily fix the temporary structure (10, Fig. 10, Hochman); a
gum incision step (S13) (¶0161, Hochman); and
a temporary structure (10, Fig. 11, Hochman) removal step (S14) of removing the temporary structure after detaching the incised granulation tissue (removed, ¶0210, Hochman).
Hochman does not teach incising the outer and inner sides of the extraction socket along the contour identified gum incision area. However, Llop teaches
incising the outer and inner sides of the extraction socket along the contour identified gum incision area (make incisions in the gum area of the dental surgical site, ¶0045, Llop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hochman by incorporating the teachings above as taught by Llop in order to peel back the gum to expose and cover up the portion of bone (or extraction site) being operated upon (¶0045 & 0051, Llop).
Regarding claim 5, Hochman teaches
wherein the alveolar bone grafting step (S20) comprises:
a bone shield fixing step (S21) of placing the bone shields on the outer and inner sides of the extraction socket (optional barrier membrane can be positioned if necessary before or after the bone grafting, ¶0211, & intra-operative abutment that is placed during the immediate soft tissue implant preservation protocol to allow bone grating materials to be placed within the bone gap, ¶0231, Hochman); and
a bone graft material insertion step (S22) of transplanting the bone graft material into the extraction socket defined by the bone shields (bone grafting materials are placed within the gap, ¶0211, Hochman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIA XIONG WHITE whose telephone number is (703)756-4773. The examiner can normally be reached 0830-1630 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerrah Edwards can be reached at (408) 918-7557. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.X.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights